Jensen v. Samuel Feldman Lumber Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jensen v. Samuel Feldman Lumber Co.

203 A.D.2d 74, 612 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 74 (Jensen v. Samuel Feldman Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jensen v. Samuel Feldman Lumber Co., 203 A.D.2d 74, 612 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Marquette L. Floyd, J.), entered on or about February 12, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant-appellant’s brief, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel the defendant to accept their complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in excusing plaintiffs’ noncompliance with CPLR 3012 (b) (see, De Vito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 AD2d 530, 531), the delay in serving the complaint being of relatively short duration and attributable in part to miscommunication between the parties’ attorneys, and plaintiffs having made a strong showing on the merits of this products liability claim (CPLR 3012 [d]). Concur —Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Marquette L. Floyd, J.), entered on or about February 12, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant-appellant’s brief, denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel the defendant to accept their complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in excusing plaintiffs’ noncompliance with CPLR 3012 (b) (see, De Vito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 AD2d 530, 531), the delay in serving the complaint being of relatively short duration and attributable in part to miscommunication between the parties’ attorneys, and plaintiffs having made a strong showing on the merits of this products liability claim (CPLR 3012 [d]). Concur —Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 74, 612 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jensen-v-samuel-feldman-lumber-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack